Contact Sensitivity to Preservatives in Singapore: Frequency of Sensitization to 11 Common Preservatives 2006–2011
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preservatives are indispensable agents used to prevent bacterial and fungal contamination of cosmetics, personal care products, domestic preparations, and industrial products. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated patch-test data at the National Skin Centre, Singapore, from 2006 to 2011 to identify the trends in preservative contact allergies. METHODS: All patients with suspected contact dermatitis were patch tested to 4 preservatives within the modified European standard series. Patients were also tested with 7 preservatives from our special series if clinically indicated. RESULTS: Three thousand one hundred seventy-seven patients were tested to preservatives in the standard series. Sensitization frequencies were all greater than 1%: parabens (2.58%), methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (1.75%), quaternium 15 (1.43%), and methyldibromoglutaronitrile (1.2%). There was no change in trends in sensitization frequencies from 2006 to 2011, with no increase in sensitization frequency to methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone. The sensitization frequencies for methyldibromoglutaronitrile/phenoxyethanol and diazolidinylurea were 2.03% and 1.37%, respectively, and remained less than 1% for bronopol, imidazolidinyl urea, and 2-phenoxyethanol. A rate of 0% was seen for 1,3-dimethylol-5,5-dimethyl hydantoin and formaldehyde; 9.4% of positive patch-test results became positive only at day 7. CONCLUSIONS: Preservatives are common causes of allergic contact dermatitis. This should be considered when introducing new preservatives into the market. Day 7 readings are important to detect late reactions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".